beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.05.16 2014노889

횡령

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant sent KRW 10 million out of KRW 19 million from the victim for the purchase of charcoal to E, set off the outstanding amount related to the supply of charcoal, and paid KRW 4 million with the Chinese travel expenses for the production of charcoal, and thus, the Defendant did not embezzled the money of the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged.

B. Not on the basis of unreasonable sentencing

Even if the court below's punishment (five months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim would be supplied with B with Bantan through the defendant, and the defendant paid 19,60,000 won as stuffs and down payment, and the defendant did not pay the above money to F in stuffs and fantans.

Furthermore, the argument that the defendant's assertion was made by paying KRW 10 million to E and making the defendant purchase of alternative charcoal from F is difficult to believe in light of the following: (a) continuous transaction relationship between the defendant and E; (b) continuous transaction relationship between the defendant and E; and (c) E was offered to purchase charcoal from F prior to the defendant's proposal; and (d) entirely disposed of the charcoal delivered by E to a third party; and (b) there is no evidence to support the argument that the defendant used KRW 9 million as offset against outstanding money or Chinese business travel expenses; and (c) as the use of the money received from the victim was specified as gambling money or down payment, the defendant's allegation in this part constitutes the elements of embezzlement as long as it was used for other purposes without the victim's consent, and thus, this part of the argument cannot be accepted.

After all, the defendant is charcoal from the victim.